Rossdale CLE v. Walton CA6
H046441
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Walton (pro se attorney) sent a demand letter alleging Rossdale sent unlawful unsolicited commercial e‑mail and sued under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17529.5 (second amended complaint alleged misleading "From" header and Notifications@TheRossdaleGroup.com issues).
- Rossdale moved for judgment on the pleadings in the underlying case; the trial court granted the motion (underlying action terminated in Rossdale's favor).
- Rossdale then brought a malicious prosecution action (filed 2014); Walton moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute and later raised corporate capacity defenses.
- The trial court allowed Rossdale to amend the caption to Rossdale CLE, Inc., d/b/a The Rossdale Group, LLC, crediting documentary evidence that Miami Legal Resources, LLC transferred assets (including the suit) to Rossdale CLE, Inc.
- One‑day bench trial: court found Walton lacked probable cause and acted with malice, and awarded Rossdale $239,282.80 in compensatory damages for attorneys' fees and costs incurred defending the underlying suit.
- Walton appealed various rulings (anti‑SLAPP denial untimely challenged on appeal); this court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of anti‑SLAPP challenge | Rossdale: trial denial stands | Walton: challenges denial | Appeal of anti‑SLAPP denial is untimely here (prior appeals dismissed for nonpayment) |
| Corporate capacity / caption change | Rossdale: assets (incl. suit) transferred to Rossdale CLE, Inc.; caption amendment proper | Walton: named plaintiff lacked capacity; documents unreliable | Trial court credited transfer evidence; substantial evidence supports caption change |
| Probable cause to file underlying §17529.5 claim | Rossdale: e‑mail header showed accurate, traceable domain (no falsified/misrepresented header) | Walton: "CLE Director" From name and third‑party sending made claim tenable | No probable cause: under Kleffman/Balsam an accurate, traceable domain makes a §17529.5 claim not arguably tenable |
| Malice in initiating underlying suit | Rossdale: Walton withheld his e‑mail and produced unusable discovery to inflate damages and delay | Walton: privacy concerns and legitimate expert need for header data | Substantial evidence of malice (withholding address, discovery abuse); trial court could reject Walton's explanations |
| Damages award ($239,282.80) | Rossdale: documentary proof of attorneys' fees and payments supports compensatory damages | Walton: fees not shown reasonable/necessary; some counsel not CA‑admitted | Award upheld on substantial evidence; challenges forfeited (no new‑trial motion; objections not raised at trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 49 Cal.4th 334 (Cal. 2010) (an accurate, traceable domain in an e‑mail header does not, by itself, constitute falsified or misrepresented header information under §17529.5(a)(2))
- Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (header falsification occurs where sender domain neither identifies sender nor is readily traceable via public WHOIS)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (elements and standards for malicious prosecution)
- Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (malicious prosecution requires termination favorable to plaintiff, lack of probable cause, and malice)
- Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal.3d 43 (Cal. 1974) (measure of compensatory damages in malicious prosecution includes litigation costs and emotional harm)
- Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (where no statement of decision requested, appellate court assumes trial court made necessary findings supported by substantial evidence)